Americans are generally an optimistic people. Maybe that's why we have such trouble wrapping our brains around the idea that there will be no happy ending for Iraq. We let the genie out of the bottle by invading, and the bottle literally blew up in our face. It doesn't matter what we do now because the outcome will be the same: civil war and bloody anarchy.
The only question is how many more U.S. troop casualties we're willing to tolerate before we do what everyone knows needs to be done and pull out of Iraq.
Congress has wasted a colossal amount of time and energy with the debate over a nonbinding resolution expressing opposition to President Bush's troop surge. Which resolution should come to the floor? How should the language be worded? It's all irrelevant. Any such nonbinding resolution is what U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., correctly termed ""the legislative equivalent of a soundbyte.""
Politically, of course, the resolution makes sense. Democrats are betting—quite safely—that the troop surge will have no effect and the situation in Iraq will be as bad a year from now as it is today. By refusing to cut funding for the war, they avoid accusations that they don't support the troops, and by calling a vote, they acquire a cudgel with which to thrash vulnerable Republican congressmen and senators in 2008 who vote to support the war.
Furthermore, by not taking any real action on the war, they keep the blame for mistakes focused exclusively on the Bush administration, as well as on U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a steadfast war supporter and leading contender for the GOP presidential nomination. On the road to the next election, Iraq is a political gift that keeps on giving.
But while Democrats position their chess pieces for 2008, people are dying on the ground. More and more U.S. soldiers are killed every day because Bush clings to the fantasy of Iraq becoming the Jeffersonian democracy he envisioned when he ordered the invasion. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle see the grim reality behind the fantasy, but too many are lending legitimacy to this sham of a debate over a resolution that provides political cover but forces no real changes in policy.
Republican hard-liners in Congress say the resolution indicates they don't support the troops. In this, they are right for the wrong reasons. The resolution doesn't support the troops because it doesn't do anything to bring them home. There is no reason to expect the end result in Iraq to be better because of our involvement, thus there is no reason to continue our involvement. It is expensive in dollars and human lives, and the payoff is an unrealistic pipe-dream.
I don't believe the Democrats' refusal to deal with Iraq stems from cynical political motivations. Rather, I think even as their brains say the war is hopeless, their hearts secretly hope the troop surge will miraculously bring about a shining democracy in the Middle East. Or maybe they just don't have the votes to forcibly turn off the war's funding spigot, so they figure they might as well score some political points.
But members of Congress should not kid themselves into thinking a symbolic, toothless resolution equals real action on their part. Congressional Democrats have responsibilities that transcend building their party's strength for 2008. They have a responsibility to the country to be a functioning, coequal branch of government, and they have a responsibility to the armed forces not to put them in harm's way without a clearly defined mission.
Every day that goes by with our troops still in Iraq increases the likelihood that some of them will be returning home in bodybags needlessly. A lightweight resolution of disapproval does nothing to decrease this risk.
There will be no happy ending in Iraq, and it is irresponsible to keep pretending otherwise. If Congress wants to support the troops, it should bring them home immediately.
